THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, MORBI vs. M/S. RANG CERA COAT, , MORBI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar"नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. Rang Cera Coat, Ward-4, 8-A, National Highway, Morbi Morbi Pan :Aalfr 1616 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2023

Section 131 of the Act had evidentiary value. The learned CIT(A) was convinced with the explanation of the assessee that the entire purchases could not be disallowed as being bogus noting the fact that being a trader and the sales having not been doubted, there was no question of corresponding purchases in relation to the said sales having

SHREE N H ENTERPRISES,RAJKOT vs. PCIT-1 RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No. 227/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree N. H. Enterprises बनाम/ Pcit-1, D-101, Golden Portico Apartment, Dr. Income Tax Office, Vs. Madhapar Circle, Morbi Road, Rajkot- Rajkot-360007 360007 /. /. Pan/Gir No.: Adlfs7019K "थायीलेखासं जीआइआरसं (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) .. (""यथ"/Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2025 : 20/11/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement

section 263 of the Act, to revise the assessment order should be quashed. 4 Shree N. H. Enterprises vs. PCIT 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessing officer, disallowed 25% of bogus purchases

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06- Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus Accordingly, he made disallowance Tribunal found that though

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06- Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus Accordingly, he made disallowance Tribunal found that though

MISS PARI ANIL GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii).Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was\nsuspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant, Judic Member आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.257 & 223/Rjt/2022 निर्धररवरध/Asstt. Years: 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S Premji Valji & Sons D.C.I.T, (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Circle-2(1), “Kuvarjibhai Tower” Rakot. Palace Road, Rajkot-360001. Pan: Aaccp2555N

section 147 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. 8. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in part being 25% of bogus purchases instead of deleting the same in entirety

PRAVINBHAI MOHANBHAI VADI,JAMNAGAR vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.102/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2021-22 Pravinbhai Mohanbhai Vadi The Pr. Commissioner Of बनाम Flat No.1, Prabhudeep Apartment Income Tax, Jamanagar. Air Force-2 Road Vs. Jamnagar. Pan : Agzpv6946P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld.Ar राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.Cit-Dr

bogus purchases. Therefore, such assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, therefore, the jurisdiction exercised by the ld. Pr. CIT is bad in law and hence order passed by the ld. PCIT may be quashed. 9.On the other hand, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that the main issue before

M/S. PREMJI VALJI & SONS (JEWELLERS) P. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 2 (1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

section 147 of the Act in the given facts and circumstances. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed. I.T.A No. 258/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 6 M/s. Premji Valji & Sons (Jewellers) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 5. The second issue raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made

LATE SMT. PRITI A. GANDHI L/R. SHRI ANILBHAI A. GANDHI, RAJKOT,RAJKOT vs. THE PR. CIT-1, RAJKOT, RAJKOT

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii).Shri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company was\nsuspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10

SAMEER SHAH (HUF),1 "SWAPNEEL" ,OPP. GURUDATATREY TEMPLE PALACE ROAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR, GUJARAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.248/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sameer Shah (Huf), Vs. The Ito Ward 1(3), 1 “Swapneel”, Opp. Jamnagar - 361001 Gurudatatrey Temple, Palace Road, Jamnagar - 361008 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aawhs3749E (Appellant) (Respondent)

bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the assessee assessee had furnished evidence to show

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

bogus and in the nature of penny stock. By adding Rs. 2,10,474/- under section 68 of the Act, total income was assessed at Rs. 5,21,964/-. 3.2 In appeal by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the issue was re-examined. According to the appellate authority the assessee assessee had furnished evidence to show

NISHANT PAREKH- LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), JAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.215/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-2016) Nishant Parekh – Legal Heir Of Vs. Income Tax Officer Mina Parekh Aaykar Bhavan 322 Madhav Square, Opp 361001, Gujrat Avantika Complex, Limda Lane Road, Gujrat-361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 10(38) of the Act. The assessing officer, nowhere, in the assessment order, stated that these documentary evidences, submitted by the assessee, are bogus. 17. We note that there are three conditions to claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act viz: (i) Shares were purchased

GLOBAL EXTRUSIONS PVT. LTD. ,JAMNAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.203/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Global Extrusions Private Limited. Vs. Pcit Jamnagar, Ca Govind Sonecha Taranjali Building, “S&A House”, Near Golden City, Jamnagar 361008 80Ft Road, Khodiyar Colony, B/H Saru Section Police Headquarters, Jamnagar 361006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcm4319E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. (Cit)Dr Date Of Hearing : 19/03 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/06/2025

Bogus Purchase and rendering the said purchase transactions to be unexplained. 3. The learned PCIT has erred in law vide para 9 and 10 of his Order by invoking Section

BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. UJIBEN KANJIBHAI SAKARIYA,JETPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(1), RAJKOT, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

bogus loss was to be deleted\"\n(iii)\nShri Ambalal Chimanlal Patel,[2024] 162 taxmann.com 892 (Gujarat)\n“Where assessee purchased shares of a company when trading of said company\nwas suspended and sold same and claimed exemption under section 10

M/S. GREEN EARTH BIOGAS PVT. LTD.,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

10,000/- on 24.03.2017. Most importantly, the Tax Auditor has\nhimself certified start of commercial production date as on 01.10.2016,\nwhich cannot be ignored. Nonetheless, there are claim and counter claim\nfrom both sides which are quite contradictory to each other. This is very\nmuch evident from assessment record that proper enquiry/investigation on\nthis issue was not done

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC CIT(A), DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

10 1 of the assessment order. The contentions raised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings are rejected, on similar grounds, being devoid of merit. On the given facts, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the additions made by the AO in the assessment order, primarily on thebasis of the factual findings, emanating from the search

KRUPALU METALS P. LTD.,JAMNAGAR vs. THE NFAC DELHI, DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं/.Ita Nos.111 To 113/Rjt/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16

10 1 of the assessment order. The contentions raised by the appellant during the appellate proceedings are rejected, on similar grounds, being devoid of merit. On the given facts, I do not find any reason, whatsoever, to interfere with the additions made by the AO in the assessment order, primarily on thebasis of the factual findings, emanating from the search

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji

MANSUKHLAL KHIMJI KHIMASIYA HUF,JAMNAGAR vs. OFFICE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JAMNAGAR, JAMNAGAR

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

10(38) of the Act or bogus long term -short term capital loss. 3.2. During the year you have sold 3500 shares of Karma Ispat Ltd for Rs.9,71,587/- on 10/06/2021 and 13/06/2011. These shares were purchased by you nearly 13 months back on 29.04.2010 for Rs.80,869/-, at a price of Rs.23/- per share. The long Mansukhlal khimji